First, health reform is a signature piece of legislation for Obama. There is no chance that he would allow himself to be rolled on it by the Republicans.

Second, the Tea Party has broken constitutional convention in terms of the division of powers. They have provoked what amounts to a constitutional crisis. Such is the significance of the standoff that Obama cancelled an important trip to Asia to attend the APEC summit of heads of government.

Third, if Obama caves in to these lunatics, then it's opening the door to all kinds of future lunacy. A line in the sand must be drawn NOW.

"We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn HERE! This far, no further!" - Captain Jean Luc Obama

Such a shame that people outside of the US don't realize the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with this...

this is completely at the feet of house Republicans, it was instigated by Cruz in the Senate but now Boehner is owning it so he can "look like the alpha" to those under his leadership.

Problem being, this high school pissing contest is playing with the full faith and credit of the "best country on earth", as if it's worth it to do this because the US is trying to catch up with Canada and everyone else in providing guaranteed healthcare for everyone.

Such a shame. If the country goes to hell because of the house republican's irresponsibility, they'll do what they always do and project, they'll shift blame onto the democrats. Yet the democrats aren't asking anything from the republicans. Just insane.

RedPhoenix122:qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

Because if we start doing that, maybe they'll realize they need to be better in order to keep their job.

How would that work if you're not applying any sort of discriminating criteria? If we're "voting them all out" then we're voting out the "good" representatives as well as the "bad representatives" while leaving in place all of the things that brought the "bad representatives" into the process in the first place, not to mention that most people's definition of "good representative" and "bad representative" is probably dependent on whether or not it's their Congressman in question.

What is happening is the GOP is trying for an enormous power grab where they will control national policy from a slim majority in the House by threatening to severely harm the country if their demands are not met. The Democrats are dealing with a hostage situation where any concessions will set the precedent that the US can be successfully held for ransom.

Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling. I think a severe global economic downturn is the only thing that will make people demand such changes to our broken political system.

What is happening is the GOP is trying for an enormous power grab where they will control national policy from a slim majority in the House by threatening to severely harm the country if their demands are not met. The Democrats are dealing with a hostage situation where any concessions will set the precedent that the US can be successfully held for ransom.

That's effectively what TFA says. Subby decided to pull out a single BSABSVR sentence out of context.

From The Woods:Such a shame that people outside of the US don't realize the Democrats have absolutely nothing to do with this...

this is completely at the feet of house Republicans, it was instigated by Cruz in the Senate but now Boehner is owning it so he can "look like the alpha" to those under his leadership.

Actually, the submission headline is a bit misleading with regards to the how the article explains the situation.

"In the U.S. constitutional division of powers, the president proposes, the Congress disposes and the Supreme Court decides.In 2010, President Barack Obama proposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and Congress passed it. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare.But the Tea Party wing of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives denied funding for ObamaCare in the budget standoff with the Democratic majority in the Senate this week. "

Bam, right in the preamble the author of the column sets up that the Tea Partiers are having a little tantrum. He also refers to the Tea Party wing as 'crazies' which Boehner should ditch if he wants to save the GOP. I'd say he's grasped the situation rather well.

Lando Lincoln:TeDDD: Yeah, I can tell very easily that many of you read the headline, but not even the opening of the article.

The headline quote really didn't fit the rest of the article. Not sure why the author put that in there.

I think the author is saying that, despite the facts being clear to an outside observer (One: Obama will not back down on the ACA, and Two: the Tea Partiers are ignoring the constitutional division of power in order to provoke a crisis) the situation has devolved to finger pointing and posturing.

As a Canadian, I can't say this is my perspective on it. What we're seeing is another episode of a right wing minority trying to take over the US. Obamacare, for all the public mention of it, is only the macguffin. The real issue the control of the GOP and hence, control of the gerrymandered house, and ultimately control of the purse strings of the US gov't.

This is the same "disagreement" that led to the sequester. Only now, even tea qaeda realizes the Dems won't be fooled twice, so the stakes are that much higher. The real issue is... will the rank and file "sane" Republicans step forward and declare that enough is enough?

As far as the effects on the Canadian economy, I can agree with the article's writer. We're going to temporarily see a stronger Canadian dollar. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective) the Canadian economy is tied too tightly to the US for the looney to totally take off compared to the US dollar. If the US does default and the globe goes to either the Euro or the Yuan as the global currency, we'll probably end up tanking too.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.

Jormungandr:Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

Such a party would be laughed out of office. And then would never win any election more important than "team captain for local lacrosse team". "Tried to destroy our public healthcare" is to Canada what "Tried to downsize the military" is to the US.

The same goes for any party worldwide that tried to abolish single-payer care in a nation that already has it. Hence the insane wrangling over the ACA. Turns out people (even the poors!) don't like dying/going bankrupt over common medical issues.

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque:I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

That's the beauty of the parliamentary system though. If the gov't can't perform basic duties (such as making a budget and paying for budgeted items) then the gov't is dissolved and a new election is held until a government is formed that can actually govern.

I'm no fan of Harper's conservatives, but they can't really shut down the gov't for any meaningful amount of time.

In Canada we have access to CNN, Fox News, Drudge, Politico, Huffington Post, the Daily Show, etc. Anybody who actually cares doesn't need some trite article in a local paper to understand that the Tea Party is using its gerrymandered majority in the house to take the American economy hostage, in an effort to dictate policy to the senate and executive branch.

Mercutio74:As a Canadian, I can't say this is my perspective on it. What we're seeing is another episode of a right wing minority trying to take over the US. Obamacare, for all the public mention of it, is only the macguffin. The real issue the control of the GOP and hence, control of the gerrymandered house, and ultimately control of the purse strings of the US gov't.

This is the same "disagreement" that led to the sequester. Only now, even tea qaeda realizes the Dems won't be fooled twice, so the stakes are that much higher. The real issue is... will the rank and file "sane" Republicans step forward and declare that enough is enough?

As far as the effects on the Canadian economy, I can agree with the article's writer. We're going to temporarily see a stronger Canadian dollar. Luckily (or unluckily, depending on your perspective) the Canadian economy is tied too tightly to the US for the looney to totally take off compared to the US dollar. If the US does default and the globe goes to either the Euro or the Yuan as the global currency, we'll probably end up tanking too.

The GOP did this autopsy thing after the last election and one of the findings was that unless something changed there was little likelihood of the GOP retaking the White House. The conventional understanding of this was the now famous and flawed GOP outreach. The diagnosis is still the same but it appears the plan has changed. It now seems that they seek to change the roles of government and make the executive branch a ceremonial and politically neutered office.

If they can't have it, they will make it irrelevant. They can win in the House so they will make it the center of power.

Texas has 36 seats in the House, and thanks to gerrymandering only 12 Dems. Gerrymandered majorities are /fragile/ -- get her the cash to campaign successfully and straight-ticket voters may vote for her and kick out the failures in the bargain.

Mercutio74:Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'm sure Canadians would have a different opinion of it were their conservative party shutting down the government and threatening economic collapse if they couldn't repeal single-payer.

That's the beauty of the parliamentary system though. If the gov't can't perform basic duties (such as making a budget and paying for budgeted items) then the gov't is dissolved and a new election is held until a government is formed that can actually govern.

I'm no fan of Harper's conservatives, but they can't really shut down the gov't for any meaningful amount of time.

Despite the flaws of our parliament, it works fairly well in comparison to the antics happening south of the border right now. We need reform of the election act, but the parliamentary process is better than most.

Lando Lincoln:Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling.

Mouldy Squid:Despite the flaws of our parliament, it works fairly well in comparison to the antics happening south of the border right now. We need reform of the election act, but the parliamentary process is better than most.

I think there are really only two things we have to do. First is look at how MPs are elected. This first (filter ignore this!) past the post system only works if there are two parties. We need instant run off voting. Also, there should be a number of non-riding federal seats available so that parties that can manage a significant percentage of the vote but can't get an MP elected in a riding can represent Canadians in parliament so that our parliament is more or less representative of the mix of Canadian political philosophy.

The other thing is to look at the Senate. I'm not saying it should necessarily be an elected Senate, but there should be a way to avoid political parties stacking it with ringers. Maybe term limits or perhaps some way of limiting an ideological stacking of the Senate that doesn't serve Canadians.

red5ish:Lando Lincoln: Personally, I am willing to trade the entire global economy in exchange for the destruction of the Tea Party, the severe crippling of the Republican Party, an end to gerrymandering and a reversal of the Citizens United ruling.

Pyr′rhic vic′toryn.a victory or goal achieved at too great a cost.

Let's look at other options before we go there.

I don't know.... Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better.....

qorkfiend:RedPhoenix122: qorkfiend: RedPhoenix122: Can we vote them all out next year?

Why are you assuming that the people who will replace them will be superior in any way?

Because if we start doing that, maybe they'll realize they need to be better in order to keep their job.

How would that work if you're not applying any sort of discriminating criteria? If we're "voting them all out" then we're voting out the "good" representatives as well as the "bad representatives" while leaving in place all of the things that brought the "bad representatives" into the process in the first place, not to mention that most people's definition of "good representative" and "bad representative" is probably dependent on whether or not it's their Congressman in question.

There is actually a cogent theory behind why "voting them all out" would be beneficial. Many people realize that power structures behind the scenes, long term influence from powerful lobby interests, and the general term "beltway insider" many times work against national interests to benefit themselves locally. Immediate voting out of everyone tears down those power structures, and in the process, it makes it possible for decisions to be made for other reasons. Banking interests, for instance, would lose a lot of protection, as there are factions in both parties distrustful of powerful bankers and still believing there should be accountability for the widespread risk frauds that spurred the economic collapse.

That said, it also means there is less control about the direction of the country and more potential for more extreme recklessness. I'm much more for a "tear them all down and replace the house with 1-rep-per-70,000 system on proportional representation" which would dilute control far beyond the means of most large corporations to meaningfully contribute and fight the effects of gerrymandering long term.